In <3E4A6BE6(_dot_)9090200(_at_)Sonietta(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Sam Roberts wrote:
Backwards compatibility with standards compliant messages, that I
understand, but backwards compatiblity with invalidly encoded messages?
Before utf-8 can be adopted, there needs to be a transition
period where there is a moratorium on *all* untagged 8-bit
header field content as a prerequisite to a state where
the only untagged 8-bit content is utf-8. The current
Usefor draft lacks such a transition plan.
And that just shows how out of touch with the Real World (TM) you are.
How do you propose to introduce such a moratorium (that behaviour is
_already_ non-compliant with the standards). More importantly, how do you
propose to enforce it?
I can tell you that it will _never_ happen, and so if you wait for it you
will wait for ever, and UTF-8 will never get introduced into the
nstandards. Which will actually make the situation worse, because people
will start using even more outlandish charsets without tagging.
OTOH, if it is made clear from the outset that UTF-8 is the one and true
way, then at least some people will take heed, and the situation will get
better (still not perfect, but better). In fact one can possibly get to a
state where everybody except the Chinese uses it (sadly, the Chinese are a
law unto themselves :-( ).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5